10-K
 
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, DC 20549
FORM 10-K
x
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015
or
o
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the transition period from              to             

Commission File Number 1-12298 (Regency Centers Corporation)
Commission File Number 0-24763 (Regency Centers, L.P.)

REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION
REGENCY CENTERS, L.P.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
FLORIDA (REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION)
 
59-3191743
DELAWARE (REGENCY CENTERS, L.P.)
59-3429602
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)
(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
 
 
One Independent Drive, Suite 114
Jacksonville, Florida 32202
(904) 598-7000
(Address of principal executive offices) (zip code)
(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Regency Centers Corporation
Title of each class
 
Name of each exchange on which registered
Common Stock, $.01 par value
 
New York Stock Exchange
6.625% Series 6 Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock, $.01 par value
 
New York Stock Exchange
6.000% Series 7 Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock, $.01 par value
 
New York Stock Exchange
 
 
 
 
 
 
Regency Centers, L.P.
Title of each class
 
Name of each exchange on which registered
None
 
N/A
________________________________
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
Regency Centers Corporation: None
Regency Centers, L.P.: Class B Units of Partnership Interest
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.
Regency Centers Corporation              YES  x    NO  o                     Regency Centers, L.P.              YES  x    NO  o
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act
Regency Centers Corporation              YES  o    NO   x                    Regency Centers, L.P.              YES  o    NO  x
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.
Regency Centers Corporation              YES  x    NO  o                     Regency Centers, L.P.              YES  x    NO  o



Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).
Regency Centers Corporation              YES  x    NO  o                     Regency Centers, L.P.              YES  x    NO  o
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.
Regency Centers Corporation                  o                    Regency Centers, L.P.                  o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):
Regency Centers Corporation:
Large accelerated filer
x
 
Accelerated filer
o
Non-accelerated filer
o
 
Smaller reporting company
o
Regency Centers, L.P.:
Large accelerated filer
o
  
Accelerated filer
x
Non-accelerated filer
o
  
Smaller reporting company
o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).
Regency Centers Corporation              YES  o    NO   x                    Regency Centers, L.P.              YES  o    NO  x
State the aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates computed by reference to the price at which the common equity was last sold, or the average bid and asked price of such common equity, as of the last business day of the registrants' most recently completed second fiscal quarter.
Regency Centers Corporation              $5,455,675,538               Regency Centers, L.P.              N/A
The number of shares outstanding of the Regency Centers Corporation’s voting common stock was 97,606,523 as of February 10, 2016.
Documents Incorporated by Reference
Portions of Regency Centers Corporation's proxy statement in connection with its 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders are incorporated by reference in Part III.
 





EXPLANATORY NOTE
This report combines the annual reports on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015 of Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P. Unless stated otherwise or the context otherwise requires, references to “Regency Centers Corporation” or the “Parent Company” mean Regency Centers Corporation and its controlled subsidiaries; and references to “Regency Centers, L.P.” or the “Operating Partnership” mean Regency Centers, L.P. and its controlled subsidiaries. The term “the Company”, "Regency Centers" or “Regency” means the Parent Company and the Operating Partnership, collectively.
The Parent Company is a real estate investment trust (“REIT”) and the general partner of the Operating Partnership. The Operating Partnership's capital includes general and limited common Partnership Units (“Units”). As of December 31, 2015, the Parent Company owned approximately 99.8% of the Units in the Operating Partnership and the remaining limited Units are owned by investors. The Parent Company owns all of the Series 6 and 7 Preferred Units of the Operating Partnership. As the sole general partner of the Operating Partnership, the Parent Company has exclusive control of the Operating Partnership's day-to-day management.
The Company believes combining the annual reports on Form 10-K of the Parent Company and the Operating Partnership into this single report provides the following benefits:
 
Enhances investors' understanding of the Parent Company and the Operating Partnership by enabling investors to view the business as a whole in the same manner as management views and operates the business;  

Eliminates duplicative disclosure and provides a more streamlined and readable presentation; and  

Creates time and cost efficiencies through the preparation of one combined report instead of two separate reports. 
Management operates the Parent Company and the Operating Partnership as one business. The management of the Parent Company consists of the same individuals as the management of the Operating Partnership. These individuals are officers of the Parent Company and employees of the Operating Partnership.
The Company believes it is important to understand the few differences between the Parent Company and the Operating Partnership in the context of how the Parent Company and the Operating Partnership operate as a consolidated company. The Parent Company is a REIT, whose only material asset is its ownership of partnership interests of the Operating Partnership. As a result, the Parent Company does not conduct business itself, other than acting as the sole general partner of the Operating Partnership, issuing public equity from time to time and guaranteeing certain debt of the Operating Partnership. The Parent Company does not hold any indebtedness, but guarantees all of the unsecured public debt and approximately 21% of the secured debt of the Operating Partnership. The Operating Partnership holds all the assets of the Company and retains the ownership interests in the Company's joint ventures. Except for net proceeds from public equity issuances by the Parent Company, which are contributed to the Operating Partnership in exchange for partnership units, the Operating Partnership generates all remaining capital required by the Company's business. These sources include the Operating Partnership's operations, its direct or indirect incurrence of indebtedness, and the issuance of partnership units.
Stockholders' equity, partners' capital, and noncontrolling interests are the main areas of difference between the consolidated financial statements of the Parent Company and those of the Operating Partnership. The Operating Partnership's capital includes general and limited common Partnership Units, as well as Series 6 and 7 Preferred Units owned by the Parent Company. The limited partners' units in the Operating Partnership owned by third parties are accounted for in partners' capital in the Operating Partnership's financial statements and outside of stockholders' equity in noncontrolling interests in the Parent Company's financial statements. The Series 6 and 7 Preferred Units owned by the Parent Company are eliminated in consolidation in the accompanying consolidated financial statements of the Parent Company and are classified as preferred units of general partner in the accompanying consolidated financial statements of the Operating Partnership.
In order to highlight the differences between the Parent Company and the Operating Partnership, there are sections in this report that separately discuss the Parent Company and the Operating Partnership, including separate financial statements, controls and procedures sections, and separate Exhibit 31 and 32 certifications. In the sections that combine disclosure for the Parent Company and the Operating Partnership, this report refers to actions or holdings as being actions or holdings of the Company. 

As general partner with control of the Operating Partnership, the Parent Company consolidates the Operating Partnership for financial reporting purposes, and the Parent Company does not have assets other than its investment in the Operating Partnership. Therefore, while stockholders' equity and partners' capital differ as discussed above, the assets and liabilities of the Parent Company and the Operating Partnership are the same on their respective financial statements.




TABLE OF CONTENTS
 
Item No.
 
Form 10-K
Report Page
 
 
 
 
PART I
 
 
 
 
1.
 
 
 
1A.
 
 
 
1B.
 
 
 
2.
 
 
 
3.
 
 
 
4.
 
 
 
 
PART II
 
 
 
 
5.
 
 
 
6.
 
 
 
7.
 
 
 
7A.
 
 
 
8.
 
 
 
9.
 
 
 
9A.
 
 
 
9B.
 
 
 
 
PART III
 
 
 
 
10.
 
 
 
11.
 
 
 
12.
 
 
 
13.
 
 
 
14.
 
 
 
 
PART IV
 
 
 
 
15.
 
 
 
 
SIGNATURES
 
 
 
 
16.






Forward-Looking Statements    

In addition to historical information, information in this Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements as defined under federal securities laws. These forward-looking statements include statements about anticipated changes in our revenues, the size of our development and redevelopment program, earnings per share and unit, returns and portfolio value, and expectations about our liquidity. These statements are based on current expectations, estimates and projections about the real estate industry and markets in which the Company operates, and management's beliefs and assumptions. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve certain known and unknown risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such statements. Known risks and uncertainties are described further in the Item 1A. Risk Factors below. The following discussion should be read in conjunction with the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes thereto of Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P. appearing elsewhere herein. We do not undertake any obligation to release publicly any revisions to such forward-looking statements to reflect events or uncertainties after the date hereof or to reflect the occurrence of uncertain events.

PART I
Item 1.    Business

Regency Centers began its operations as a publicly-traded REIT in 1993, and currently owns direct or partial interests in 318 shopping centers, the majority of which are grocery-anchored community and neighborhood centers. Our centers are located in the top markets of 27 states and the District of Columbia, and contain 38.0 million square feet of gross leasable area ("GLA"). Our pro-rata share of this GLA is 28.4 million square feet. All of our operating, investing, and financing activities are performed through the Operating Partnership, its wholly-owned subsidiaries, and through its co-investment partnerships.
Our mission is to be the best-in-class grocery-anchored shopping center owner and developer through:
First-rate performance of our exceptionally merchandised and located national portfolio;
Value-enhancing services of the best team of professionals in the business; and
Creation of superior growth in shareholder value.

Our strategy is to:
Sustain average annual 3% net operating income (“NOI”) growth from a high-quality, growing portfolio of thriving community and neighborhood shopping centers;
Develop new, and redevelop existing, high quality shopping centers at attractive returns on investment from a disciplined development program;
Cost-effectively enhance our already strong balance sheet to reduce our cost of capital, provide financial flexibility and weather economic downturns; and
Engage a talented and dedicated team that operates efficiently and is recognized as a leader in the real estate industry with respect to development and operating capabilities, customer relationships, operating and technology systems, and environmental sustainability.

We expect to execute our strategy as follows:

Sustain average annual 3% NOI growth from a high-quality, growing portfolio of thriving community and neighborhood shopping centers:
Own and develop centers that are located at key corners in our nation’s most attractive metro areas;
Target trade areas characterized by their strong demographics and consumer buying power, and draw shoppers to our centers with highly productive anchor tenants;
Attract the best national, regional and local retailers and restaurants;
Pursue initiatives that reinforce the underlying quality of our portfolio and maximize long-term growth such as “Fresh Look®,” an operating philosophy that guides our merchandising and place-making programs;
Fortify future NOI growth by rigorously reviewing our portfolio to identify low growth assets for disposition; and
Opportunistically upgrade our portfolio by acquiring high quality shopping centers with meaningful upside in NOI growth funded from the sale of low growth assets.

Develop new, and redevelop existing, high quality shopping centers at attractive returns on investment from a disciplined development program:
Maintain and grow our existing presence in our key markets with in-house expertise and anchor relationships;
Develop shopping centers located in desirable infill markets for long-term ownership;
Anchor developments with dominant, national and regional chains and high volume specialty grocers;
Limit size of program to manage total development exposure and risk;
Create additional value through redevelopment of existing centers to benefit the operating portfolio; and

1



Fund development program primarily from the sale of low-growth assets in the existing portfolio.

Cost-effectively enhance an already strong balance sheet to reduce our cost of capital, provide financial flexibility and weather economic downturns:
Prudently access our multiple sources of debt and equity through the capital markets and co-investment partnerships;
Fund development and acquisitions from free cash flow, a disciplined match-funding strategy of selling low growth assets, and accessing favorably priced equity;
Further reduce leverage when appropriate through organic growth in earnings and accessing the capital markets;
Rigorously manage our $800 million line of credit and maintain substantial uncommitted capacity;
Maintain a large pool of unencumbered assets and excellent relationships with mortgage lenders; and
Maintain a well laddered debt maturity profile.

Engage a talented and dedicated team that operates efficiently and is recognized as a leader in the real estate industry with respect to development and operating capabilities, customer relationships, operating and technology systems, and environmental sustainability:
Reflect our values by executing and successfully meeting our commitments to our people and our communities, a tradition we have embraced for over 50 years;
Foster a values-based culture, offering a comprehensive benefits package and an engaging workplace environment;
Uphold unwavering standards of honesty and integrity and build our reputation by maintaining the highest ethical principles;
Offer a challenging, safe and dynamic work environment and support the professional development and personal life of each employee;
Encourage employees to achieve their personal health goals through a robust wellness program focused on education, awareness and prevention; and
Contribute to the betterment of our communities by supporting philanthropic programs with employee contribution matching and paid volunteer time.

    
Environmental Sustainability

We recognize the importance of operating in a sustainable manner and are committed to reducing our environmental impact, including energy and water use, greenhouse gas emissions, and waste.  We are committed to transparency with regard to our sustainability performance, risks and opportunities, and will continue to increase disclosure using industry accepted reporting frameworks.   We believe our commitment to environmental sustainability supports the Company in achieving key strategic objectives, leads to better risk management, enhances our relationships with key stakeholders, and is in the best interest of our shareholders. 

Competition
 
We are among the largest owners of shopping centers in the nation based on revenues, number of properties, gross leasable area ("GLA"), and market capitalization. There are numerous companies and individuals engaged in the ownership, development, acquisition, and operation of shopping centers that compete with us in our targeted markets, including grocery store chains that also anchor some of our shopping centers. This results in competition for attracting anchor tenants, as well as the acquisition of existing shopping centers and new development sites. We believe that our competitive advantages are driven by:
our locations within our market areas;
the design and high quality of our shopping centers;
the strong demographics surrounding our shopping centers;
our relationships with our anchor tenants and our side-shop and out-parcel retailers;
our practice of maintaining and renovating our shopping centers; and
our ability to source and develop new shopping centers.
  
Employees
 
Our corporate headquarters are located at One Independent Drive, Suite 114, Jacksonville, Florida. We presently maintain 18 market offices nationwide, where we conduct management, leasing, construction, and investment activities. We have 371 employees and we believe that our relations with our employees are good.

2



 Compliance with Governmental Regulations
 
Under various federal, state and local laws, ordinances and regulations, we may be liable for the cost to remove or remediate certain hazardous or toxic substances at our shopping centers. These laws often impose liability without regard to whether the owner knew of, or was responsible for, the presence of the hazardous or toxic substances. The cost of required remediation and the owner's liability for remediation could exceed the value of the property and/or the aggregate assets of the owner. The presence of such substances, or the failure to properly remediate such substances, may adversely affect our ability to sell or lease the property or borrow using the property as collateral. Although we have a number of properties that could require or are currently undergoing varying levels of environmental remediation, known environmental remediation is not currently expected to have a material financial impact on us due to insurance programs designed to mitigate the cost of remediation, various state-regulated programs that shift the responsibility and cost to the state, and existing accrued liabilities for remediation.
 
Executive Officers
 
Our executive officers are appointed each year by our Board of Directors. Each of our executive officers has been employed by us in the position indicated in the list or notes below for more than five years.

Name
Age
Title
Executive Officer in Position Shown Since
Martin E. Stein, Jr.
63
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
1993
Lisa Palmer
48
President and Chief Financial Officer
2016 (1)
Dan M. Chandler, III
49
Executive Vice President of Development
2016 (2)
James D. Thompson
60
Executive Vice President of Operations
2016 (3)

(1) Ms. Palmer assumed the responsibilities of President, effective January 1, 2016 in addition to her responsibilities as Chief Financial Officer, which she has held since January 2013. Prior to that, Ms. Palmer served as Senior Vice President of Capital Markets since 2003 and has been with the Company since 1996.
(2) Mr. Chandler assumed the role of Executive Vice President of Development on January 1, 2016 and previously served as our Managing Director - West since 2009 and has been with the Company since 2009.
(3) Mr. Thompson assumed the role of Executive Vice President of Operations on January 1, 2016 and previously served as our Managing Director - East since our initial public offering in 1993. Prior to that time, Mr. Thompson served as Executive Vice President of our predecessor real estate division beginning in 1981.


Company Website Access and SEC Filings

Our website may be accessed at www.regencycenters.com. All of our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) can be accessed free of charge through our website promptly after filing; however, in the event that the website is inaccessible, we will provide paper copies of our most recent annual report on Form 10-K, the most recent quarterly report on Form 10-Q, current reports filed or furnished on Form 8-K, and all related amendments, excluding exhibits, free of charge upon request. These filings are also accessible on the SEC's website at www.sec.gov.

General Information

Our registrar and stock transfer agent is Broadridge Corporate Issuer Solutions, Inc. (“Broadridge”), Philadelphia, PA. We offer a dividend reinvestment plan (“DRIP”) that enables our stockholders to reinvest dividends automatically, as well as to make voluntary cash payments toward the purchase of additional shares. For more information, contact Broadridge toll free at (855) 449-0975 or our Shareholder Relations Department at (904) 598-7000.

Our independent registered public accounting firm is KPMG LLP, Jacksonville, Florida. Our legal counsel is Foley & Lardner LLP, Jacksonville, Florida.

Annual Meeting

Our annual meeting will be held at The Ponte Vedra Inn & Club, 200 Ponte Vedra Blvd, Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida, at 8:30 a.m. on Friday, April 29, 2016.

3



Defined Terms
    
The following terms, as defined, are commonly used by management and the investing public to understand and evaluate our operational results:

Net Operating Income ("NOI") is calculated as total property revenues (minimum rent, percentage rents, and recoveries from tenants and other income) less direct property operating expenses (operating and maintenance and real estate taxes) from the properties owned by us, and excludes corporate-level income (including management, transaction, and other fees), for the entirety of the periods presented.

Same Property information is provided for operating properties that were owned and operated for the entirety of both calendar year periods being compared and excludes Non-Same Properties and Properties in Development.

A Non-Same Property is a property acquired, sold, or development property completed during either calendar year period being compared.

Property In Development is a property owned and intended to be developed, including partially operating properties acquired specifically for redevelopment and excluding land held for future development.

Development Completion is a project in development that is deemed complete upon the earliest of: (i) 90% of total estimated net development costs have been incurred and percent leased equals or exceeds 95%, or (ii) percent leased equals or exceeds 90% and the project features at least one year of anchor operations, or (iii) the project features at least two years of anchor operations, or (iv) three years have passed since the start of construction. Once deemed complete, the property is termed an Operating Property.

Same Property NOI includes NOI for Same Properties, but excludes straight-line rental income, net of reserves, above and below market rent amortization, banking charges, and other fees. Same Property NOI is a key measure used by management in evaluating the performance of our properties. The Company also provides disclosure of Same Property NOI excluding termination fees, which excludes both termination fee income and expenses.

Pro-Rata information includes 100% of our consolidated properties plus our ownership interest in our unconsolidated real estate investment partnerships.

NAREIT Funds from Operations ("NAREIT FFO") is a commonly used measure of REIT performance, which the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts ("NAREIT") defines as net income, computed in accordance with GAAP, excluding gains and losses from sales of depreciable property, net of tax, excluding operating real estate impairments, plus depreciation and amortization, and after adjustments for unconsolidated partnerships and joint ventures. We compute NAREIT FFO for all periods presented in accordance with NAREIT's definition. Many companies use different depreciable lives and methods, and real estate values historically fluctuate with market conditions. Since NAREIT FFO excludes depreciation and amortization and gains and losses from depreciable property dispositions, and impairments, it provides a performance measure that, when compared year over year, reflects the impact on operations from trends in occupancy rates, rental rates, operating costs, acquisition and development activities, and financing costs. This provides a perspective of our financial performance not immediately apparent from net income determined in accordance with GAAP. Thus, NAREIT FFO is a supplemental non-GAAP financial measure of our operating performance, which does not represent cash generated from operating activities in accordance with GAAP and therefore, should not be considered an alternative for cash flow as a measure of liquidity.

Core FFO is an additional performance measure used by Regency as the computation of NAREIT FFO includes certain non-cash and non-comparable items that affect the Company's period-over-period performance.  Core FFO excludes from NAREIT FFO, but is not limited to: (a) transaction related gains, income or expense; (b) impairments on land; (c) gains or losses from the early extinguishment of debt; and (d) other non-core amounts as they occur.  The Company provides a reconciliation of NAREIT FFO to Core FFO.


4



Item 1A. Risk Factors

Risk Factors Related to Our Industry and Real Estate Investments

A shift in retail shopping from brick and mortar stores to internet sales may have an adverse impact on our revenues and cash flow.

Many retailers operating brick and mortar stores have made Internet sales a vital piece of their business. Although many of the retailers in our shopping centers either provide services or sell groceries, such that their customer base does not have a tendency toward online shopping, the shift to internet sales may adversely impact our retail tenants' sales causing those retailers to adjust the size or number of retail locations in the future. This shift could adversely impact our occupancy and rental rates, which would impact our revenues and cash flows.

Downturns in the retail industry likely will have a direct adverse impact on our revenues and cash flow.

Our properties consist primarily of grocery-anchored shopping centers. Our performance therefore is generally linked to economic conditions in the market for retail space. The market for retail space could be adversely affected by any of the following:

Weakness in the national, regional and local economies, which could adversely impact consumer spending and retail sales and in turn tenant demand for space and lead to increased store closings;
Adverse financial conditions for grocery and retail anchors;
Continued consolidation in the retail sector;
Excess amount of retail space in our markets;
Reduction in the demand by tenants to occupy our shopping centers as a result of reduced consumer demand for certain retail categories;
The growth of super-centers and warehouse club retailers, such as those operated by Wal-Mart and Costco, and their adverse effect on traditional grocery chains;
The impact of changing energy costs on consumers and its consequential effect on retail spending; and
Consequences of any armed conflict involving, or terrorist attack against, the United States.

To the extent that any of these conditions occur, they are likely to impact market rents for retail space, occupancy in the operating portfolios, our ability to sell, acquire or develop properties, and our cash available for distributions to stock and unit holders.

Our revenues and cash flow could be adversely affected if economic or market conditions deteriorate where our properties are geographically concentrated, which may impede our ability to generate sufficient income to pay expenses and maintain our properties.

The economic conditions in markets in which our properties are concentrated greatly influence our financial performance. During the year ended December 31, 2015, our properties in California, Florida, and Texas accounted for 30.4%, 12.1%, and 10.3%, respectively, of our net operating income from Consolidated Properties plus our pro-rata share from Unconsolidated Properties ("pro-rata basis"). Our revenues and cash available to pay expenses, maintain our properties, and for distributions to stock and unit holders could be adversely affected by this geographic concentration if market conditions, such as supply of or demand for retail space, deteriorate in California, Florida, or Texas relative to other geographic areas.

Our success depends on the success and continued presence of our “anchor” tenants.

Anchor tenants (those occupying 10,000 square feet or more) occupy large amounts of square footage, pay a significant portion of the total rents at a property and contribute to the success of other tenants by drawing significant numbers of customers to a property. We derive significant revenues from anchor tenants such as Kroger, Publix, and Albertsons/Safeway, who accounted for 4.7%, 3.7%, and 2.9%, respectively, of our total annualized base rent on a pro-rata basis, for the year ended December 31, 2015. Our net income could be adversely affected by the loss of revenues in the event a significant tenant:

Becomes bankrupt or insolvent;
Experiences a downturn in its business;
Materially defaults on its leases;
Does not renew its leases as they expire; or
Renews at lower rental rates.


5



Some anchors have the right to vacate and prevent re-tenanting by paying rent for the balance of the lease term. Vacated anchor space, including space owned by the anchor, can reduce rental revenues generated by the shopping center because of the loss of the departed anchor tenant's customer drawing power. If a significant tenant vacates a property, co-tenancy clauses in select centers may allow other tenants to modify or terminate their rent or lease obligations. Co-tenancy clauses have several variants: they may allow a tenant to postpone a store opening if certain other tenants fail to open their stores; they may allow a tenant to close its store prior to lease expiration if another tenant closes its store prior to lease expiration; or more commonly, they may allow a tenant to pay reduced levels of rent until a certain number of tenants open their stores within the same shopping center.

A significant percentage of our revenues are derived from smaller shop tenants and our net income could be adversely impacted if our smaller shop tenants are not successful.

A significant percentage of our revenues are derived from smaller shop tenants (those occupying less than 10,000 square feet). Smaller shop tenants may be more vulnerable to negative economic conditions as they have more limited resources than larger tenants. Such tenants continue to face increasing competition from non-store retailers and growing e-commerce. In addition, some of these retailers may seek to reduce their store sizes as they increasingly rely on alternative distribution channels, including internet sales, and adjust their square footage needs accordingly. The types of smaller shop tenants vary from retail shops to service providers. If we are unable to attract the right type or mix of smaller shop tenants into our centers, our net income could be adversely impacted.

We may be unable to collect balances due from tenants in bankruptcy.

Although minimum rent is supported by long-term lease contracts, tenants who file bankruptcy have the legal right to reject any or all of their leases and close related stores. In the event that a tenant with a significant number of leases in our shopping centers files bankruptcy and rejects its leases, we could experience a significant reduction in our revenues and may not be able to collect all pre-petition amounts owed by that party.

Our real estate assets may be subject to impairment charges.

Our long-lived assets, primarily real estate held for investment, are carried at cost unless circumstances indicate that the carrying value of the assets may not be recoverable. We evaluate whether there are any indicators, including property operating performance and general market conditions, that the value of the real estate properties (including any related amortizable intangible assets or liabilities) may not be recoverable. Through the evaluation, we compare the current carrying value of the asset to the estimated undiscounted cash flows that are directly associated with the use and ultimate disposition of the asset. Our estimated cash flows are based on several key assumptions, including rental rates, costs of tenant improvements, leasing commissions, anticipated holding periods, and assumptions regarding the residual value upon disposition, including the exit capitalization rate. These key assumptions are subjective in nature and could differ materially from actual results. Changes in our disposition strategy or changes in the marketplace may alter the holding period of an asset or asset group, which may result in an impairment loss and such loss could be material to the Company's financial condition or operating performance. To the extent that the carrying value of the asset exceeds the estimated undiscounted cash flows, an impairment loss is recognized equal to the excess of carrying value over fair value.

The fair value of real estate assets is subjective and is determined through comparable sales information and other market data if available, or through use of an income approach such as the direct capitalization method or the traditional discounted cash flow approach. Such cash flow projections consider factors, including expected future operating income, trends and prospects, as well as the effects of demand, competition and other factors, and therefore are subject to management judgment. Changes in those factors could impact the determination of fair value. In estimating the fair value of undeveloped land, we generally use market data and comparable sales information.

These subjective assessments have a direct impact on our net income because recording an impairment charge results in an immediate negative adjustment to net income. There can be no assurance that we will not take additional charges in the future related to the impairment of our assets. Any future impairment could have a material adverse effect on our net income in the period in which the charge is taken.

Adverse global market and economic conditions could cause us to recognize impairment charges or otherwise harm our performance.

We are unable to predict the timing, severity, and length of adverse market and economic conditions. Adverse market and economic conditions may impede our ability to generate sufficient operating cash flow to pay expenses, maintain properties, pay distributions to our stock and unit holders, and refinance debt. During adverse periods, there may be significant uncertainty in the valuation of our properties and investments that could result in a substantial decrease in their value. No

6



assurance can be given that we would be able to recover the current carrying amount of all of our properties and investments in the future. Our failure to do so would require us to recognize impairment charges for the period in which we reached that conclusion, which could materially and adversely affect us and the market price of our common stock.

Unsuccessful development activities or a slowdown in development activities could have a direct impact on our revenues, revenue growth, and/or net income.

We actively pursue development opportunities. Development activities require various government and other approvals for entitlements and any delay in such approvals may significantly delay the development process. We may not recover our investment in development projects for which approvals are not received. We incur other risks associated with development activities, including:

The risk that we may be unable to lease developments to full occupancy on a timely basis;
The risk that occupancy rates and rents of a completed project will not be sufficient to make the project profitable;
The risk that development costs of a project may exceed original estimates, possibly making the project unprofitable;
The risk that delays in the development and construction process could increase costs;
The risk that we may abandon development opportunities and lose our investment in such opportunities;
The risk that the size of our development pipeline will strain our capacity to complete the developments within the targeted timelines and at the expected returns on invested capital;
Changes in the level of future development and redevelopment activity could have an adverse impact on operating results by reducing the amount of capitalizable internal costs for development projects; and
The lack of cash flow during the construction period.

If we expand into new markets, we may not be successful, which could adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

If opportunities arise, we may acquire properties in new markets. Each of the risks applicable to our ability to acquire and integrate successfully and operate properties in our current markets is also applicable in new markets. In addition, we may not possess the same level of familiarity with the dynamics and market conditions of the new markets we may enter, which could adversely affect the results of our expansion into those markets, and we may be unable to achieve our desired return on our investments in new markets. If we are unsuccessful in expanding into new markets, it could adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Our acquisition activities may not produce the returns that we expect.

Our investment strategy includes investing in high-quality shopping centers that are leased to market-dominant grocers, category-leading anchors, specialty retailers, or restaurants located in areas with high barriers to entry and above average household incomes and population densities. The acquisition of properties and/or companies entails risks that include, but are not limited to, the following, any of which could adversely affect our results of operations and our ability to meet our obligations:

Properties we acquire may fail to achieve the occupancy or rental rates we project, within the time frames we estimate, which may result in the properties' failure to achieve the returns we projected;
Our pre-acquisition evaluation of the physical condition of each new investment may not detect certain defects or identify necessary repairs until after the property is acquired, which could significantly increase our total acquisition costs or decrease cash flow from the property;
Our investigation of a company, property or building prior to our acquisition, and any representations we may receive from such seller, may fail to reveal various liabilities, which could reduce the cash flow from the acquisition or increase our acquisition costs;
Our estimate of the costs to improve, reposition or redevelop a property may prove to be too low, or the time we estimate to complete the improvement, repositioning or redevelopment may be too short, either of which could result in the property failing to achieve the returns we have projected, either temporarily or for a longer time;
We may not recover our costs from an unsuccessful acquisition;
Our acquisition activities may distract our management and generate significant costs; and
We may not be able to integrate an acquisition into our existing operations successfully.


7



We may experience difficulty or delay in renewing leases or re-leasing space.

We derive most of our revenue from rent received from our tenants. We are subject to the risks that, upon expiration or termination of leases, leases for space in our properties may not be renewed, space may not be re-leased, or the terms of renewal or re-lease, including the cost of required renovations or concessions to tenants, may be less favorable than current lease terms. As a result, our results of operations and our net income could be adversely impacted.

We may be unable to sell properties when appropriate because real estate investments are illiquid.

Real estate investments generally cannot be sold quickly. Our inability to respond promptly to unfavorable changes in the performance of our investments could have an adverse effect on our ability to meet our obligations and make distributions to our stock and unit holders.

A number of properties in our portfolio are subject to ground leases; if we are found to be in breach of a ground lease or are unable to renew a ground lease, we could be materially and adversely affected.

We have properties in our portfolio that are either completely or partially on land subject to ground leases with third parties.  Accordingly, we only own long-term leasehold or similar interest in those properties.  If we are found to be in breach of a ground lease, we could lose our interest in the improvements and the right to operate the property that is subject to the ground lease.  In addition, unless we can purchase a fee interest in the underlying land or extend the terms of these leases before or at their expiration, as to which no assurance can be given, we will lose our interest in the improvements and the right to operate such properties.  The existing lease terms, including renewal options, were taken into consideration when making our investment decisions. The purchase price and subsequent improvements are being depreciated over the shorter of the remaining life of the ground leases or the useful life of the underlying assets. If we were to lose the right to operate a property due to a breach or not exercising renewal options of the ground lease, we would be unable to derive income from such property, which would impair the value of our investments, and materially and adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Geographic concentration of our properties makes our business vulnerable to natural disasters and severe weather conditions, which could have an adverse effect on our cash flow and operating results.

A significant portion of our property gross leasable area is located in areas that are susceptible to earthquakes, tropical storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, and other natural disasters. As of December 31, 2015, approximately 23.2%, 15.7%, and 10.5% of our property gross leasable area, on a pro-rata basis, was located in California, Florida, and Texas, respectively. Intense weather conditions during the last decade have caused our cost of property insurance to increase significantly. We recognize that the frequency and / or intensity of extreme weather events may continue to increase due to climate change, and as a result, our exposure to these events could increase.  These weather conditions also disrupt our business and the business of our tenants, which could affect the ability of some tenants to pay rent and may reduce the willingness of residents to remain in or move to the affected area. Therefore, as a result of the geographic concentration of our properties, we face risks, including higher costs, such as uninsured property losses and higher insurance premiums, and disruptions to our business and the businesses of our tenants.

An uninsured loss or a loss that exceeds the insurance coverage on our properties could subject us to loss of capital or revenue on those properties.

We carry comprehensive liability, fire, flood, extended coverage, rental loss, and environmental insurance for our properties with policy specifications and insured limits customarily carried for similar properties. We believe that the insurance carried on our properties is adequate and consistent with industry standards. There are, however, some types of losses, such as losses from hurricanes, terrorism, wars or earthquakes, for which the insurance levels carried may not be sufficient to fully cover catastrophic losses impacting multiple properties. In addition, tenants generally are required to indemnify and hold us harmless from liabilities resulting from injury to persons or damage to personal or real property, on or off the premises, due to activities conducted by tenants or their agents on the properties (including without limitation any environmental contamination), and at the tenant's expense, to obtain and keep in full force during the term of the lease, liability and property damage insurance policies. However, our tenants may not properly maintain their insurance policies or have the ability to pay the deductibles associated with such policies. Should a loss occur that is uninsured or in an amount exceeding the combined aggregate limits for the policies noted above, or in the event of a loss that is subject to a substantial deductible under an insurance policy, we could lose all or part of our capital invested in, and anticipated revenue from, such properties, which could have a material adverse effect on our operating results and financial condition, as well as our ability to make distributions to stock and unit holders.



8



Loss of our key personnel could adversely affect our business and operations.

We depend on the efforts of our key executive personnel. Although we have developed a succession plan and believe qualified replacements could be found for our key executives, the loss of their services could adversely affect our business and operations.

We face competition from numerous sources, including other REITs and other real estate owners.

The ownership of shopping centers is highly fragmented. We face competition from other REITs and well capitalized institutional investors, as well as from numerous small owners in the acquisition, ownership, and leasing of shopping centers. We also compete to develop shopping centers with other REITs engaged in development activities as well as with local, regional, and national real estate developers. This competition may:

reduce the number of properties available for acquisition or development;
increase the cost of properties available for acquisition or development;
hinder our ability to attract and retain tenants, leading to increased vacancy rates and/or reduced rents; and
adversely affect our ability to minimize our expenses of operation.

If we cannot successfully compete in our targeted markets, our cash flow, and therefore distributions to stock and unit holders, may be adversely affected.

Costs of environmental remediation could reduce our cash flow available for distribution to stock and unit holders.

Under various federal, state and local laws, an owner or manager of real property may be liable for the costs of removal or remediation of hazardous or toxic substances on the property. These laws often impose liability without regard to whether the owner knew of, or was responsible for, the presence of hazardous or toxic substances. The cost of any required remediation could exceed the value of the property and/or the aggregate assets of the owner or the responsible party. The presence of, or the failure to properly remediate, hazardous or toxic substances may adversely affect our ability to sell or lease a contaminated property or to use the property as collateral for a loan. Any of these developments could reduce cash flow and our ability to make distributions to stock and unit holders.

Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and fire, safety and other regulations may require us to make unintended expenditures.

All of our properties are required to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), which generally requires that buildings be made accessible to people with disabilities. Compliance with ADA requirements could require removal of access barriers, and noncompliance could result in imposition of fines by the U.S. government or an award of damages to private litigants, or both. While the tenants to whom we lease properties are obligated by law to comply with the ADA provisions, and typically under tenant leases are obligated to cover costs associated with compliance, if required changes involve greater expenditures than anticipated, or if the changes must be made on a more accelerated basis than anticipated, the ability of these tenants to cover costs could be adversely affected. In addition, we are required to operate the properties in compliance with fire and safety regulations, building codes and other land use regulations, as they may be adopted by governmental entities and become applicable to the properties. We may be required to make substantial capital expenditures to comply with these requirements, and these expenditures could have a material adverse effect on our ability to meet our financial obligations and make distributions to our stock and unit holders.

If we do not maintain the security of tenant-related information, we could incur substantial costs and become subject to litigation.

We receive certain information about our tenants that depends upon secure transmissions of confidential information over public networks, including information permitting cashless payments. A compromise of our security systems that results in information being obtained by unauthorized persons could result in litigation against us or the imposition of penalties and require us to expend significant resources related to our information security systems. Such disruptions could adversely affect our operations, results of operations, financial condition and liquidity.

We rely extensively on computer systems to process transactions and manage our business; cyber security attacks and other disruptions could harm our ability to run our business.

We face risks associated with security breaches, whether through (i) cyber attacks or cyber intrusions, (ii) malware or computer viruses and (iii) people with access or who gain access to our systems, and other significant disruptions of our computer networks and related systems. The risk of a security breach or disruption, particularly through cyber attack or cyber

9



intrusion, has increased as the number, intensity and sophistication of attempted attacks and intrusions from around the world have increased. Our computer networks and related systems are essential to the operation of our business and our ability to perform day-to-day operations. Although we make efforts to maintain the security and integrity of our computer networks and related systems, and we have implemented various measures to manage the risk of a security breach or disruption, there can be no assurance that our security efforts and measures will be effective or that attempted security breaches or disruptions would not be successful or damaging. A security breach or other disruption involving our computer networks and related systems could significantly disrupt the proper functioning of our networks and systems and, as a result, disrupt our operations, which could have a material adverse effect on our liquidity, financial condition and results of operations.

Risk Factors Related to Our Co-investment Partnerships and Acquisition Structure

We do not have voting control over our joint venture investments, so we are unable to ensure that our objectives will be pursued.

We have invested substantial capital as a partner in a number of joint venture investments for the acquisition or development of properties. These investments involve risks not present in a wholly-owned project as we do not have voting control over the ventures, although we do have approval rights over major decisions. The other partner may (i) have interests or goals that are inconsistent with our interests or goals or (ii) otherwise impede our objectives. The other partner also may become insolvent or bankrupt. These factors could limit the return that we receive from such investments or cause our cash flows to be lower than our estimates.

The termination of our co-investment partnerships could adversely affect our cash flow, operating results, and our ability to make distributions to stock and unit holders.

If co-investment partnerships owning a significant number of properties were dissolved for any reason, we would lose the asset and property management fees from these co-investment partnerships, which could adversely affect our operating results and our cash available for distribution to stock and unit holders.

Risk Factors Related to Funding Strategies and Capital Structure

Higher market capitalization rates for our properties could adversely impact our ability to sell properties and fund developments and acquisitions, and could dilute earnings.

As part of our funding strategy, we sell operating properties that no longer meet our investment standards or those with a limited future growth profile. These sales proceeds are used to fund the construction of new developments, redevelopments and acquisitions. An increase in market capitalization rates could cause a reduction in the value of centers identified for sale, which would have an adverse impact on the amount of cash generated. In order to meet the cash requirements of our development program, we may be required to sell more properties than initially planned, which could have a negative impact on our earnings.

We depend on external sources of capital, which may not be available in the future on favorable terms or at all.

To qualify as a REIT, the Parent Company must, among other things, distribute to its stockholders each year at least 90% of its REIT taxable income (excluding any net capital gains). Because of these distribution requirements, we may not be able to fund all future capital needs with income from operations. We therefore will have to rely on third-party sources of capital, which may or may not be available on favorable terms or at all. Our access to third-party sources of capital depends on a number of things, including the market's perception of our growth potential and our current and potential future earnings. Our access to debt depends on our credit rating, the willingness of creditors to lend to us and conditions in the capital markets.  In addition to finding creditors willing to lend to us, we are dependent upon our joint venture partners to contribute their pro rata share of any amount needed to repay or refinance existing debt when lenders reduce the amount of debt our joint ventures are eligible to refinance.

In addition, our existing debt arrangements also impose covenants that limit our flexibility in obtaining other financing, such as a prohibition on negative pledge agreements. Additional equity offerings may result in substantial dilution of stockholders' interests and additional debt financing may substantially increase our degree of leverage.

Without access to external sources of capital, we would be required to pay outstanding debt with our operating cash flows and proceeds from property sales.  Our operating cash flows may not be sufficient to pay our outstanding debt as it comes due and real estate investments generally cannot be sold quickly at a return we believe is appropriate.  If we are required to deleverage our business with operating cash flows and proceeds from property sales, we may be forced to reduce the amount of, or eliminate altogether, our distributions to stock and unit holders or refrain from making investments in our business.

10



Our debt financing may adversely affect our business and financial condition.

Our ability to make scheduled payments or to refinance our indebtedness will depend primarily on our future performance, which to a certain extent is subject to economic, financial, competitive and other factors beyond our control. In addition, we do not expect to generate sufficient funds from operations to make balloon principal payments on our debt when due. If we are unable to refinance our debt on acceptable terms, we may be forced (i) to dispose of properties, which might result in losses, or (ii) to obtain financing at unfavorable terms, either of which could reduce the cash flow available for distributions to stock and unit holders. If we cannot make required mortgage payments, the mortgagee could foreclose on the property securing the mortgage.

Covenants in our debt agreements may restrict our operating activities and adversely affect our financial condition.

Our unsecured notes, unsecured term loan, and unsecured line of credit contain customary covenants, including compliance with financial ratios, such as ratio of total debt to gross asset value and fixed charge coverage ratio. Fixed charge coverage ratio is defined as earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization ("EBITDA") divided by the sum of interest expense and scheduled mortgage principal paid to our lenders plus dividends paid to our preferred stockholders. Our debt arrangements also restrict our ability to enter into a transaction that would result in a change of control. These covenants may limit our operational flexibility and our acquisition activities. Moreover, if we breach any of the covenants in our debt agreements, and do not cure the breach within the applicable cure period, our lenders could require us to repay the debt immediately, even in the absence of a payment default. Many of our debt arrangements, including our unsecured notes, unsecured term loan, and unsecured line of credit are cross-defaulted, which means that the lenders under those debt arrangements can put us in default and require immediate repayment of their debt if we breach and fail to cure a default under certain of our other material debt obligations. As a result, any default under our debt covenants could have an adverse effect on our financial condition, our results of operations, our ability to meet our obligations, and the market value of our stock.

Increases in interest rates would cause our borrowing costs to rise and negatively impact our results of operations.
    
Although a significant amount of our outstanding debt has fixed interest rates, we do borrow funds at variable interest rates under our credit facilities. Increases in interest rates would increase our interest expense on any variable rate debt to the extent we have not hedged our exposure to changes in interest rates. In addition, increases in interest rates will affect the terms under which we refinance our existing debt as it matures, to the extent we have not hedged our exposure to changes in interest rates. This would reduce our future earnings and cash flows, which could adversely affect our ability to service our debt and meet our other obligations and also could reduce the amount we are able to distribute to our stock and unit holders.

Hedging activity may expose us to risks, including the risks that a counterparty will not perform and that the hedge will
not yield the economic benefits we anticipate, which could adversely affect us.

From time to time, we manage our exposure to interest rate volatility by using interest rate hedging arrangements that
involve risk, such as the risk that counterparties may fail to honor their obligations under these arrangements, and that these
arrangements may not be effective in reducing our exposure to interest rate changes. There can be no assurance that our hedging arrangements will qualify for hedge accounting or that our hedging activities will have the desired beneficial impact on our results of operations. Should we desire to terminate a hedging agreement, there could be significant costs and cash requirements involved to fulfill our obligations under the hedging agreement. Failure to hedge effectively against interest rate changes may adversely affect our results of operations.

We may acquire properties or portfolios of properties through tax-deferred contribution transactions, which could result in stockholder dilution and limit our ability to sell such assets.

We may acquire properties or portfolios of properties through tax deferred contribution transactions in exchange for partnership interests in our operating partnership, which may result in stockholder dilution. This acquisition structure may have the effect of, among other things, reducing the amount of tax depreciation we could deduct over the tax life of the acquired properties, and may require that we agree to protect the contributors’ ability to defer recognition of taxable gain through restrictions on our ability to dispose of the acquired properties and/or the allocation of partnership debt to the contributors to maintain their tax bases. These restrictions could limit our ability to sell an asset at a time, or on terms, that would be favorable absent such restrictions.







11



Risk Factors Related to the Market Price for Our Debt and Equity Securities

Changes in economic and market conditions could adversely affect the market price of our securities.

The market price of our debt and equity securities may fluctuate significantly in response to many factors, many of which are out of our control, including:

Actual or anticipated variations in our operating results;
Changes in our funds from operations or earnings estimates;
Publication of research reports about us or the real estate industry in general and recommendations by financial analysts or actions taken by rating agencies with respect to our securities or those of other REIT's;
The ability of our tenants to pay rent and meet their other obligations to us under current lease terms and our ability to re-lease space as leases expire;
Increases in market interest rates that drive purchasers of our stock to demand a higher dividend yield;
Changes in market valuations of similar companies;
Adverse market reaction to any additional debt we incur in the future;
Any future issuances of equity securities;
Additions or departures of key management personnel;
Strategic actions by us or our competitors, such as acquisitions or restructurings;
Actions by institutional stockholders;
Changes in our dividend payments;
Speculation in the press or investment community; and
General market and economic conditions.

These factors may cause the market price of our securities to decline, regardless of our financial condition, results of operations, business or prospects. It is impossible to ensure that the market price of our securities, including our common stock, will not fall in the future. A decrease in the market price of our common stock could reduce our ability to raise additional equity in the public markets. Selling common stock at a decreased market price would have a dilutive impact on existing stockholders.

We cannot assure you we will continue to pay dividends at historical rates.

Our ability to continue to pay dividends at historical rates or to increase our dividend rate will depend on a number of factors, including, among others, the following:
  
Our financial condition and results of future operations;
The terms of our loan covenants; and
Our ability to acquire, finance, develop or redevelop and lease additional properties at attractive rates.

If we do not maintain or periodically increase the dividend on our common stock, it could have an adverse effect on the market price of our common stock and other securities.

Changes in accounting standards may adversely impact our financial results.

The Financial Accounting Standards Board ("FASB"), in conjunction with the SEC, has several key projects on their agenda that could impact how we currently account for our material transactions, including lease accounting and other convergence projects with the International Accounting Standards Board. At this time, we are unable to predict with certainty which, if any, proposals may be passed or what level of impact any such proposal could have on the presentation of our consolidated financial statements, our results of operations and our financial ratios required by our debt covenants.
 

Risk Factors Related to Federal Income Tax Laws

If the Parent Company fails to qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes, it would be subject to federal income tax at regular corporate rates.

We believe that the Parent Company qualifies for taxation as a REIT for federal income tax purposes, and we plan to operate so that we can continue to meet the requirements for taxation as a REIT. If the Parent Company continues to qualify as a REIT, it generally will not be subject to federal income tax on income that we distribute to our stockholders. Many REIT requirements, however, are highly technical and complex. The determination that the Parent Company is a REIT requires an

12



analysis of various factual matters and circumstances, some of which may not be totally within our control and some of which involve questions of interpretation. For example, to qualify as a REIT, at least 95% of our gross income must come from specific passive sources, like rent, that are itemized in the REIT tax laws. There can be no assurance that the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) or a court would agree with the positions we have taken in interpreting the REIT requirements. We are also required to distribute to our stockholders at least 90% of our REIT taxable income, excluding capital gains. The fact that we hold many of our assets through co-investment partnerships and their subsidiaries further complicates the application of the REIT requirements. Furthermore, Congress and the IRS might make changes to the tax laws and regulations, and the courts might issue new rulings, that make it more difficult, or impossible, for the Parent Company to remain qualified as a REIT.

Also, unless the IRS granted relief under certain statutory provisions, the Parent Company would remain disqualified as a REIT for four years following the year it first failed to qualify. If the Parent Company failed to qualify as a REIT (currently and/or with respect to any tax years for which the statute of limitations has not expired), we would have to pay significant income taxes, reducing cash available to pay dividends, which would likely have a significant adverse effect on the value of our securities. In addition, we would no longer be required to pay any dividends to stockholders. Although we believe that the Parent Company qualifies as a REIT, we cannot assure you that the Parent Company will continue to qualify or remain qualified as a REIT for tax purposes.

Even if the Parent Company qualifies as a REIT for federal income tax purposes, we are required to pay certain federal, state and local taxes on our income and property. For example, if we have net income from “prohibited transactions,” that income will be subject to a 100% tax. In general, prohibited transactions include sales or other dispositions of property held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business. The determination as to whether a particular sale is a prohibited transaction depends on the facts and circumstances related to that sale. While we have undertaken a significant number of asset sales in recent years, we do not believe that those sales should be considered prohibited transactions, but there can be no assurance that the IRS would not contend otherwise.

Dividends paid by REITs generally do not qualify for reduced tax rates.

Subject to limited exceptions, dividends paid by REITs (other than distributions designated as capital gain dividends or returns of capital) are not eligible for reduced rates for qualified dividends paid by "C" corporations and are taxable at ordinary income tax rates. The more favorable rates applicable to regular corporate qualified dividends could cause investors who are individuals, trusts and estates to perceive investments in REITs to be relatively less attractive than investments in the stocks of non-REIT corporations that pay dividends, which could adversely affect the value of the shares of REITs, including the shares of our capital stock.

Foreign stockholders may be subject to U.S. federal income tax on gain recognized on a disposition of our common stock if we do not qualify as a "domestically controlled" REIT.

A foreign person disposing of a U.S. real property interest, including shares of a U.S. corporation whose assets consist principally of U.S. real property interests is generally subject to U.S. federal income tax on any gain recognized on the disposition. This tax does not apply, however, to the disposition of stock in a REIT if the REIT is "domestically controlled." In general, we will be a domestically controlled REIT if at all times during the five-year period ending on the applicable stockholder’s disposition of our stock, less than 50% in value of our stock was held directly or indirectly by non-U.S. persons. If we were to fail to qualify as a domestically controlled REIT, gain recognized by a foreign stockholder on a disposition of our common stock would be subject to U.S. federal income tax unless our common stock was traded on an established securities market and the foreign stockholder did not at any time during a specified testing period directly or indirectly own more than 10% of our outstanding common stock.

Complying with REIT requirements may limit our ability to hedge effectively and may cause us to incur tax liabilities.

The REIT provisions of the Code limit our ability to hedge our liabilities. Generally, income from a hedging transaction we enter into either to manage risk of interest rate changes with respect to borrowings incurred or to be incurred to acquire or carry real estate assets, or to manage the risk of currency fluctuations with respect to any item of income or gain (or any property which generates such income or gain) that constitutes “qualifying income” for purposes of the 75% or 95% gross income tests applicable to REITs, does not constitute “gross income” for purposes of the 75% or 95% gross income tests, provided that we properly identify the hedging transaction pursuant to the applicable sections of the Code and Treasury Regulations. To the extent that we enter into other types of hedging transactions, or fail to make the proper tax identifications, the income from those transactions is likely to be treated as non-qualifying income for purposes of both gross income tests. As a result of these rules, we may need to limit our use of otherwise advantageous hedging techniques or implement those hedges through a taxable REIT subsidiary, or TRS. The use of a TRS could increase the cost of our hedging activities (because our TRS would be subject to tax on income or gain resulting from hedges entered into by it) or expose us to greater risks than we would

13



otherwise want to bear. In addition, net losses in a TRS will generally not provide any tax benefit except for being carried forward for use against future taxable income in the TRS.

Risk Factors Related to Our Ownership Limitations and the Florida Business Corporation Act

Restrictions on the ownership of the Parent Company's capital stock to preserve its REIT status could delay or prevent a change in control.

Ownership of more than 7% by value of our outstanding capital stock is prohibited, with certain exceptions, by the Parent Company's articles of incorporation, for the purpose of maintaining its qualification as a REIT. This 7% limitation may discourage a change in control and may also (i) deter tender offers for our capital stock, which offers may be attractive to our stockholders, or (ii) limit the opportunity for our stockholders to receive a premium for their capital stock that might otherwise exist if an investor attempted to assemble a block in excess of 7% of our outstanding capital stock or to affect a change in control.

The issuance of the Parent Company's capital stock could delay or prevent a change in control.

The Parent Company's articles of incorporation authorize our Board of Directors to issue up to 30,000,000 shares of preferred stock and 10,000,000 shares of special common stock and to establish the preferences and rights of any shares issued. The issuance of preferred stock or special common stock could have the effect of delaying or preventing a change in control. The provisions of the Florida Business Corporation Act regarding affiliated transactions could also deter potential acquisitions by preventing the acquiring party from consummating a merger or other extraordinary corporate transaction without the approval of our disinterested stockholders.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments

None.


14



Item 2.    Properties

The following table is a list of the shopping centers, summarized by state and in order of largest holdings, presented for Consolidated Properties (excludes properties owned by unconsolidated co-investment partnerships):
 
 
 
December 31, 2015
 
December 31, 2014
Location
 
Number of Properties
 
GLA (in thousands)
 
Percent of Total
GLA
 
Percent Leased
 
Number of Properties
 
GLA (in thousands)
 
Percent of Total
GLA
 
Percent Leased
California
 
42

 
5,619

 
24.1
%
 
95.6
%
 
43

 
5,692

 
24.5
%
 
95.4
%
Florida
 
39

 
4,214

 
18.1
%
 
94.7
%
 
38

 
4,025

 
17.3
%
 
93.8
%
Texas
 
22

 
2,716

 
11.7
%
 
97.6
%
 
21

 
2,689

 
11.5
%
 
96.1
%
Georgia
 
15

 
1,392

 
6.0
%
 
92.9
%
 
15

 
1,390

 
6.0
%
 
93.5
%
Colorado
 
15

 
1,266

 
5.4
%
 
91.3
%
 
15

 
1,266

 
5.5
%
 
90.7
%
Ohio
 
8

 
1,164

 
5.0
%
 
98.6
%
 
9

 
1,307

 
5.6
%
 
98.8
%
North Carolina
 
10

 
895

 
3.8
%
 
95.8
%
 
10

 
895

 
3.9
%
 
94.9
%
Virginia
 
6

 
841

 
3.6
%
 
96.2
%
 
6

 
841

 
3.6
%
 
95.3
%
Illinois
 
5

 
817

 
3.5
%
 
98.2
%
 
6

 
920

 
4.0
%
 
96.8
%
Oregon
 
7

 
742

 
3.2
%
 
87.9
%
 
6

 
563

 
2.4
%
 
97.2
%
Washington
 
5

 
606

 
2.6
%
 
98.7
%
 
5

 
606

 
2.6
%
 
99.8
%
Massachusetts
 
3

 
516

 
2.2
%
 
96.1
%
 
3

 
519

 
2.2
%
 
92.5
%
Missouri
 
4

 
408

 
1.8
%
 
100.0
%
 
4

 
408

 
1.8
%
 
100.0
%
Tennessee
 
3

 
317

 
1.4
%
 
96.1
%
 
3

 
317

 
1.4
%
 
96.1
%
Connecticut
 
3

 
315

 
1.4
%
 
96.3
%
 
3

 
315

 
1.4
%
 
96.8
%
Pennsylvania
 
3

 
311

 
1.3
%
 
98.4
%
 
4

 
325

 
1.4
%
 
99.6
%
Indiana
 
3

 
281

 
1.2
%
 
93.8
%
 
3

 
240

 
1.0
%
 
96.1
%
Arizona
 
2

 
274

 
1.2
%
 
92.7
%
 
2

 
274

 
1.2
%
 
95.1
%
Delaware
 
1

 
232

 
1.0
%
 
90.1
%
 
1

 
232

 
1.0
%
 
92.0
%
Maryland
 
1

 
113

 
0.5
%
 
96.1
%
 
1

 
113

 
0.5
%
 
97.2
%
Michigan
 
1

 
97

 
0.4
%
 
95.7
%
 
2

 
118

 
0.5
%
 
96.4
%
Alabama
 
1

 
85

 
0.4
%
 
95.0
%
 
1

 
85

 
0.4
%
 
89.9
%
South Carolina
 
1

 
59

 
0.3
%
 
100.0
%
 
1

 
60

 
0.3
%
 
100.0
%
Total
 
200
 
23,280
 
100.0%
 
95.4%
 
202
 
23,200
 
100.0%
 
95.3%
    
Certain Consolidated Properties are encumbered by mortgage loans of $501.9 million, excluding debt premiums and discounts, as of December 31, 2015.

The weighted average annual effective rent for the consolidated portfolio of properties, net of tenant concessions, is $18.95 and $18.30 per square foot ("PSF") as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively.

15



The following table is a list of the shopping centers, summarized by state and in order of largest holdings, presented for Unconsolidated Properties (includes properties owned by unconsolidated co-investment partnerships):
 
 
 
December 31, 2015
 
December 31, 2014
Location
 
Number of Properties
 
GLA (in thousands)
 
Percent of Total
GLA
 
Percent Leased
 
Number of Properties
 
GLA (in thousands)
 
Percent of Total
GLA
 
Percent Leased
California
 
20
 
2,652
 
18.0%
 
98.7%
 
21
 
2,782
 
18.6%
 
97.5%
Virginia
 
19
 
2,645
 
17.9%
 
96.9%
 
19
 
2,643
 
17.6%
 
97.4%
Maryland
 
13
 
1,491
 
10.1%
 
92.5%
 
13
 
1,490
 
9.9%
 
93.6%
North Carolina
 
8
 
1,275
 
8.6%
 
97.6%
 
8
 
1,272
 
8.5%
 
95.2%
Illinois
 
7
 
944
 
6.4%
 
94.6%
 
8
 
1,067
 
7.1%
 
94.5%
Texas
 
7
 
932
 
6.3%
 
99.3%
 
7
 
934
 
6.2%
 
97.5%
Colorado
 
5
 
862
 
5.8%
 
92.9%
 
5
 
862
 
5.8%
 
92.8%
Florida
 
8
 
682
 
4.6%
 
97.4%
 
8
 
682
 
4.6%
 
97.5%
Minnesota
 
5
 
674
 
4.6%
 
98.3%
 
5
 
674
 
4.5%
 
99.3%
Pennsylvania
 
6
 
664
 
4.5%
 
88.7%
 
6
 
661
 
4.4%
 
90.1%
Washington
 
5
 
621
 
4.2%
 
97.0%
 
5
 
621
 
4.1%
 
95.5%
Connecticut
 
1
 
186
 
1.3%
 
98.8%
 
1
 
186
 
1.2%
 
99.8%
South Carolina
 
2
 
162
 
1.1%
 
100.0%
 
2
 
162
 
1.1%
 
98.5%
New Jersey
 
2
 
158
 
1.1%
 
95.7%
 
2
 
158
 
1.1%
 
94.5%
New York
 
1
 
141
 
1.0%
 
100.0%
 
1
 
141
 
0.9%
 
100.0%
Indiana
 
2
 
139
 
0.9%
 
100.0%
 
2
 
138
 
0.9%
 
92.3%
Wisconsin
 
1
 
133
 
0.9%
 
92.8%
 
1
 
133
 
0.9%
 
92.8%
Arizona
 
1
 
108
 
0.7%
 
87.4%
 
1
 
108
 
0.7%
 
93.4%
Oregon
 
1
 
93
 
0.6%
 
98.1%
 
1
 
93
 
0.6%
 
98.1%
Georgia
 
1
 
86
 
0.6%
 
100.0%
 
1
 
86
 
0.6%
 
100.0%
Delaware
 
1
 
67
 
0.5%
 
91.0%
 
1
 
67
 
0.4%
 
90.1%
Dist. of Columbia
 
2
 
40
 
0.3%
 
100.0%
 
2
 
40
 
0.3%
 
97.0%
    Total
 
118
 
14,755
 
100.0%
 
96.3%
 
120
 
15,000
 
100.0%
 
96.0%

Certain Unconsolidated Properties are encumbered by mortgage loans of $1.4 billion, excluding debt premiums and discounts, as of December 31, 2015.

The weighted average annual effective rent for the unconsolidated portfolio of properties, net of tenant concessions, is $18.81 and $17.85 PSF as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively.












16



The following table summarizes the largest tenants occupying our shopping centers for Consolidated Properties plus our pro-rata share of Unconsolidated Properties, as of December 31, 2015, based upon a percentage of total annualized base rent exceeding or equal to 0.5% (GLA and dollars in thousands):

Tenant
 
GLA
 
Percent of Company Owned GLA
 
Annualized Base Rent
 
Percent of Annualized Base Rent
 
Number of Leased Stores
 
Anchor Owned Stores (1)
Kroger
 
2,490
 
8.8%
$
24,886

 
4.7%
 
53
 
5
Publix
 
1,836
 
6.5%
 
19,345

 
3.7%
 
45
 
1
Albertsons/Safeway
 
1,374
 
4.8%
 
15,277

 
2.9%
 
42
 
7
Whole Foods
 
628
 
2.2%
 
12,091

 
2.3%
 
19
 
TJX Companies
 
778
 
2.7%
 
10,331

 
2.0%
 
36
 
CVS
 
485
 
1.7%
 
7,829

 
1.5%
 
44
 
PETCO
 
334
 
1.2%
 
7,294

 
1.4%
 
44
 
Ahold/Giant
 
419
 
1.5%
 
5,980

 
1.1%
 
13
 
H.E.B.
 
344
 
1.2%
 
5,439

 
1.0%
 
5
 
Ross Dress For Less
 
306
 
1.1%
 
4,949

 
0.9%
 
16
 
Trader Joe's
 
179
 
0.6%
 
4,920

 
0.9%
 
19
 
Wells Fargo Bank
 
82
 
0.3%
 
4,238

 
0.8%
 
39
 
Bank of America
 
84
 
0.3%
 
4,107

 
0.8%
 
30
 
JPMorgan Chase Bank
 
69
 
0.2%
 
4,037

 
0.8%
 
25
 
Starbucks
 
98
 
0.3%
 
3,976

 
0.8%
 
77
 
Nordstrom
 
138
 
0.5%
 
3,813

 
0.7%
 
4
 
Dick's Sporting Goods
 
267
 
0.9%
 
3,441

 
0.7%
 
5
 
Panera Bread
 
97
 
0.3%
 
3,227

 
0.6%
 
27
 
Sears Holdings
 
388
 
1.4%
 
3,069

 
0.6%
 
5
 
1
SUPERVALU
 
265
 
0.9%
 
3,055

 
0.6%
 
11
 
Wal-Mart
 
466
 
1.6%
 
3,026

 
0.6%
 
5
 
2
Subway
 
89
 
0.3%
 
2,991

 
0.6%
 
96
 
Sports Authority
 
134
 
0.5%
 
2,973

 
0.6%
 
3
 
Bed Bath & Beyond
 
175
 
0.6%
 
2,915

 
0.6%
 
6
 
Target
 
359
 
1.3%
 
2,907

 
0.6%
 
4
 
13
(1) Stores owned by anchor tenant that are attached to our centers.

Our leases for tenant space under 5,000 square feet generally have terms ranging from three to five years. Leases greater than 10,000 square feet generally have lease terms in excess of five years, mostly comprised of anchor tenants. Many of the anchor leases contain provisions allowing the tenant the option of extending the term of the lease at expiration. Our leases provide for the monthly payment in advance of fixed minimum rent, additional rents calculated as a percentage of the tenant's sales, the tenant's pro-rata share of real estate taxes, insurance, and common area maintenance (“CAM”) expenses, and reimbursement for utility costs if not directly metered.







    

17



The following table summarizes pro-rata lease expirations for the next ten years and thereafter, for our Consolidated and Unconsolidated Properties, assuming no tenants renew their leases (GLA and dollars in thousands):

Lease Expiration Year
 
Number of Tenants with Expiring Leases
 
Pro-rata Expiring GLA
 
Percent of Total Company GLA
 
Minimum Rent Expiring Leases (2)
 
Percent of Minimum Rent (2)
(1)
 
228

 
192

 
0.7
%
 
$
4,098

 
0.8
%
2016
 
879

 
2,056

 
7.6
%
 
40,640

 
7.8
%
2017
 
1,130

 
3,278

 
12.2
%
 
70,312

 
13.5
%
2018
 
983

 
2,930

 
10.9
%
 
58,840

 
11.3
%
2019
 
827

 
3,090

 
11.5
%
 
60,482

 
11.7
%
2020
 
901

 
3,009

 
11.2
%
 
62,398

 
12.0
%
2021
 
410

 
2,022

 
7.5
%
 
37,337

 
7.2
%
2022
 
273

 
1,732

 
6.4
%
 
28,983

 
5.6
%
2023
 
216

 
1,150

 
4.3
%
 
23,621

 
4.6
%
2024
 
251

 
1,577

 
5.8
%
 
30,067

 
5.8
%
2025
 
228

 
1,188

 
4.4
%
 
27,850

 
5.4
%
Thereafter
 
453

 
4,749

 
17.5
%
 
74,485

 
14.3
%
Total
 
6,779

 
26,973

 
100.0
%
 
$
519,113

 
100.0
%
(1) Leases currently under month-to-month rent or in process of renewal.
(2) Minimum rent includes current minimum rent and future contractual rent steps, but excludes additional rent such as percentage rent, common area maintenance, real estate taxes and insurance reimbursements.

During 2016, we have a total of 879 leases expiring, representing 2.1 million square feet of GLA. These expiring leases have an average base rent of $19.77 PSF. The average base rent of new leases signed during 2015 was $25.79 PSF. During periods of recession or when occupancy is low, tenants have more bargaining power, which may result in rental rate declines on new or renewal leases. In periods of recovery and/or when occupancy levels are high, landlords have more bargaining power, which generally results in rental rate growth on new and renewal leases. Based on current economic trends and expectations, and pro-rata percent leased of 95.6%, we expect base rent on new and renewal leases during 2016 to exceed rental rates on leases expiring in 2016. Exceptions may arise in certain geographic areas or at specific shopping centers based on the local economic situation, competition, location, and size of the space being leased, among other factors. Additionally, significant changes or uncertainties affecting micro- or macroeconomic climates may cause significant changes to our current expectations.


18



See the following property table and also see Item 7, Management's Discussion and Analysis for further information about our Consolidated and Unconsolidated Properties.

Property Name
 
(1)
CBSA
 
State
 
(2)
Owner-ship Interest
 
Year Acquired
 
Year Constructed or Last Major Renovation
 
Mortgages or Encumbrances (in 000's)
 
Gross Leasable Area
(GLA) (in 000's)
 
(3)
Percent Leased
 
(4)
Average Base Rent (Per Sq Ft)
 
(5)
Grocer(s) & Major Tenant(s) >35,000 SFT
Shoppes at Fairhope Village
 
Mobile
 
AL
 
 
 
2008
 
2008
 
$—
 
85
 
95.0%
 
$14.72
 
Publix
Palm Valley Marketplace
 
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale
 
AZ
 
20%
 
2001
 
1999
 
 
108
 
87.4%
 
14.08
 
Safeway
Pima Crossing
 
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale
 
AZ
 
 
 
1999
 
1996
 
 
238
 
95.8%
 
14.48
 
Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc., SteinMart
Shops at Arizona
 
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale
 
AZ
 
 
 
2003
 
2000
 
 
36
 
72.4%
 
10.97
 
--
4S Commons Town Center
 
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos
 
CA
 
85%
 
2004
 
2004
 
62,500
 
240
 
98.7%
 
30.50
 
Ralphs, Jimbo's...Naturally!
Amerige Heights Town Center
 
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana
 
CA
 
 
 
2000
 
2000
 
16,349
 
89
 
100.0%
 
28.25
 
Albertsons, (Target)
Balboa Mesa Shopping Center
 
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos
 
CA
 
 
 
2012
 
2014
 
 
207
 
100.0%
 
23.75
 
Von's Food & Drug, Kohl's
Bayhill Shopping Center
 
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont
 
CA
 
40%
 
2005
 
1990
 
21,245
 
122
 
95.7%
 
22.65
 
Mollie Stone's Market
Blossom Valley
 
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara
 
CA
 
20%
 
1999
 
1990
 
10,255
 
93
 
100.0%
 
25.21
 
Safeway
Brea Marketplace (6)
 
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana
 
CA
 
40%
 
2005
 
1987
 
48,168
 
352
 
99.2%
 
17.55
 
Sprout's Markets, Target
Clayton Valley Shopping Center
 
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont
 
CA
 
 
 
2003
 
2004
 
 
260
 
92.5%
 
21.38
 
Grocery Outlet, Orchard Supply Hardware
Corral Hollow
 
Stockton
 
CA
 
25%
 
2000
 
2000
 
 
167
 
100.0%
 
16.67
 
Safeway, Orchard Supply & Hardware
Costa Verde Center
 
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos
 
CA
 
 
 
1999
 
1988
 
 
179
 
93.3%
 
35.66
 
Bristol Farms
Diablo Plaza
 
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont
 
CA
 
 
 
1999
 
1982
 
 
63
 
100.0%
 
36.71
 
(Safeway)
East Washington Place
 
Santa Rosa-Petaluma
 
CA
 
 
 
2011
 
2011
 
 
203
 
97.9%
 
23.71
 
(Target), Dick's Sporting Goods, TJ Maxx
El Camino Shopping Center
 
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana
 
CA
 
 
 
1999
 
1995
 
 
136
 
71.7%
 
34.02
 
--
El Cerrito Plaza
 
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont
 
CA
 
 
 
2000
 
2000
 
37,989
 
256
 
95.8%
 
27.78
 
(Lucky's), Trader Joe's
El Norte Pkwy Plaza
 
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos
 
CA
 
 
 
1999
 
2013
 
 
91
 
93.2%
 
16.70
 
Von's Food & Drug
Encina Grande
 
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont
 
CA
 
 
 
1999
 
1965
 
 
106
 
100.0%
 
29.86
 
Whole Foods
Five Points Shopping Center
 
Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Goleta
 
CA
 
40%
 
2005
 
1960
 
27,118
 
145
 
98.7%
 
26.72
 
Haggen
Folsom Prairie City Crossing
 
Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Roseville
 
CA
 
 
 
1999
 
1999
 
 
90
 
95.8%
 
19.47
 
Safeway
French Valley Village Center
 
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario
 
CA
 
 
 
2004
 
2004
 
 
99
 
100.0%
 
24.52
 
Stater Bros.
Friars Mission Center
 
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos
 
CA
 
 
 
1999
 
1989
 
 
147
 
99.0%
 
31.84
 
Ralphs
Gateway 101
 
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont
 
CA
 
 
 
2008
 
2008
 
 
92
 
100.0%
 
32.05
 
(Home Depot), (Best Buy), Sports Authority, Nordstrom Rack
Gelson's Westlake Market Plaza
 
Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura
 
CA
 
 
 
2002
 
2002
 
 
85
 
92.2%
 
21.80
 
Gelson's Markets
Golden Hills Promenade
 
San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles
 
CA
 
 
 
2006
 
2012
 
 
242
 
98.9%
 
7.11
 
Lowe's
Granada Village
 
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana
 
CA
 
40%
 
2005
 
2012
 
50,000
 
226
 
100.0%
 
22.03
 
Sprout's Markets
Hasley Canyon Village
 
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana
 
CA
 
20%
 
2003
 
2003
 
8,360
 
66
 
100.0%
 
24.84
 
Ralphs
Heritage Plaza (6)
 
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana
 
CA
 
 
 
1999
 
1981
 
 
230
 
98.6%
 
33.15
 
Ralphs
Indio Towne Center
 
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario
 
CA
 
 
 
2006
 
2010
 
 
180
 
95.8%
 
17.87
 
(Home Depot), (WinCo), Toys R Us
Jefferson Square
 
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario
 
CA
 
 
 
2007
 
2007
 
 
38
 
55.7%
 
14.81
 
--
Laguna Niguel Plaza
 
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana
 
CA
 
40%
 
2005
 
1985
 
 
42
 
100.0%
 
25.84
 
(Albertsons)
Loehmanns Plaza California
 
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara
 
CA
 
 
 
1999
 
1983
 
 
113
 
81.1%
 
20.88
 
(Safeway)
Marina Shores
 
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana
 
CA
 
20%
 
2008
 
2001
 
11,079
 
68
 
100.0%
 
33.08
 
Whole Foods

19




Property Name
 
(1)
CBSA
 
State
 
(2)
Owner-ship Interest
 
Year Acquired
 
Year Constructed or Last Major Renovation
 
Mortgages or Encumbrances (in 000's)
 
Gross Leasable Area
(GLA) (in 000's)
 
(3)
Percent Leased
 
(4)
Average Base Rent (Per Sq Ft)
 
(5)
Grocer(s) & Major Tenant(s) >35,000 SFT
Mariposa Shopping Center
 
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara
 
CA
 
40%
 
2005
 
1957
 
20,529
 
127
 
100.0%
 
19.16
 
Safeway
Morningside Plaza
 
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana
 
CA
 
 
 
1999
 
1996
 
 
91
 
100.0%
 
21.79
 
Stater Bros.
Navajo Shopping Center
 
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos
 
CA
 
40%
 
2005
 
1964
 
8,375
 
102
 
96.9%
 
13.37
 
Albertsons
Newland Center
 
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana
 
CA
 
 
 
1999
 
1985
 
 
152
 
96.5%
 
22.91
 
Albertsons
Oakbrook Plaza
 
Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura
 
CA
 
 
 
1999
 
1982
 
 
83
 
95.4%
 
17.67
 
Haggen
Oak Shade Town Center
 
Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Roseville
 
CA
 
 
 
2011
 
1998
 
9,208
 
104
 
97.4%
 
19.54
 
Safeway
Persimmon Place
 
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont
 
CA
 
 
 
2014
 
2014
 
 
153
 
96.5%
 
33.81
 
Whole Foods, Nordstrom Rack
Plaza Hermosa
 
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana
 
CA
 
 
 
1999
 
2013
 
13,800
 
95
 
100.0%
 
24.80
 
Von's Food & Drug
Pleasant Hill Shopping Center
 
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont
 
CA
 
40%
 
2005
 
1970
 
50,000
 
232
 
99.1%
 
23.98
 
Target, Toys "R" Us
Point Loma Plaza
 
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos
 
CA
 
40%
 
2005
 
1987
 
26,487
 
213
 
99.2%
 
19.19
 
Von's Food & Drug
Powell Street Plaza
 
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont
 
CA
 
 
 
2001
 
1987
 
 
166
 
100.0%
 
32.42
 
Trader Joe's
Raley's Supermarket
 
Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Roseville
 
CA
 
20%
 
2007
 
1964
 
 
63
 
100.0%
 
5.41
 
Raley's
Rancho San Diego Village
 
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos
 
CA
 
40%
 
2005
 
1981
 
22,825
 
153
 
92.8%
 
20.37
 
Haggen
Rona Plaza
 
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana
 
CA
 
 
 
1999
 
1989
 
 
52
 
100.0%
 
20.05
 
Superior Super Warehouse
San Leandro Plaza
 
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont
 
CA
 
 
 
1999
 
1982
 
 
50
 
100.0%
 
33.91
 
(Safeway)
Seal Beach
 
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana
 
CA
 
20%
 
2002
 
1966
 
2,200
 
97
 
98.5%
 
23.85
 
Von's Food & Drug
Sequoia Station
 
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont
 
CA
 
 
 
1999
 
1996
 
21,100
 
103
 
98.6%
 
37.74
 
(Safeway)
Silverado Plaza
 
Napa
 
CA
 
40%
 
2005
 
1974
 
10,253
 
85
 
100.0%
 
16.70
 
Nob Hill
Snell & Branham Plaza
 
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara
 
CA
 
40%
 
2005
 
1988
 
13,686
 
92
 
100.0%
 
17.90
 
Safeway
South Bay Village
 
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana
 
CA
 
 
 
2012
 
2012
 
 
108
 
100.0%
 
19.11
 
Wal-Mart, Orchard Supply Hardware
Strawflower Village
 
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont
 
CA
 
 
 
1999
 
1985
 
 
79
 
96.2%
 
18.98
 
Safeway
Tassajara Crossing
 
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont
 
CA
 
 
 
1999
 
1990
 
19,800
 
146
 
99.0%
 
22.71
 
Safeway
Twin Oaks Shopping Center
 
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana
 
CA
 
40%
 
2005
 
1978
 
10,117
 
98
 
98.6%
 
17.81
 
Ralphs
Twin Peaks
 
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos
 
CA
 
 
 
1999
 
1988
 
 
208
 
76.8%
 
20.23
 
Target
The Hub Hillcrest Market (fka Uptown District)
 
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos
 
CA
 
 
 
2012
 
2015
 
 
149
 
92.2%
 
36.43
 
Ralphs, Trader Joe's
Valencia Crossroads
 
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana
 
CA
 
 
 
2002
 
2003
 
 
173
 
100.0%
 
25.56
 
Whole Foods, Kohl's
Village at La Floresta (7)
 
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana
 
CA
 
 
 
2014
 
2014
 
 
87
 
92.1%
 
31.49
 
Whole Foods
West Park Plaza
 
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara
 
CA
 
 
 
1999
 
1996
 
 
88
 
100.0%
 
17.49
 
Safeway
Westlake Village Plaza and Center
 
Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura
 
CA
 
 
 
1999
 
2015
 
 
197
 
100.0%
 
35.52
 
Von's Food & Drug and Sprouts
Woodman Van Nuys
 
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana
 
CA
 
 
 
1999
 
1992
 
 
108
 
100.0%
 
14.90
 
El Super
Woodside Central
 
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont
 
CA
 
 
 
1999
 
1993
 
 
81
 
100.0%
 
23.61
 
(Target)
Ygnacio Plaza
 
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont
 
CA
 
40%
 
2005
 
1968
 
27,859
 
110
 
97.2%
 
36.26
 
Sports Basement, Fresh & Easy
Applewood Shopping Center
 
Denver-Aurora
 
CO
 
40%
 
2005
 
1956
 
 
381
 
86.0%
 
11.28
 
King Soopers, Wal-Mart
Arapahoe Village
 
Boulder
 
CO
 
40%
 
2005
 
1957
 
14,169
 
159
 
96.9%
 
17.55
 
Safeway

20




Property Name
 
(1)
CBSA
 
State
 
(2)
Owner-ship Interest
 
Year Acquired
 
Year Constructed or Last Major Renovation
 
Mortgages or Encumbrances (in 000's)
 
Gross Leasable Area
(GLA) (in 000's)
 
(3)
Percent Leased
 
(4)
Average Base Rent (Per Sq Ft)
 
(5)
Grocer(s) & Major Tenant(s) >35,000 SFT
Belleview Square
 
Denver-Aurora
 
CO
 
 
 
2004
 
2013
 
 
117
 
99.0%
 
17.15
 
King Soopers
Boulevard Center
 
Denver-Aurora
 
CO
 
 
 
1999
 
1986
 
 
79
 
94.1%
 
26.15
 
(Safeway)
Buckley Square
 
Denver-Aurora
 
CO
 
 
 
1999
 
1978
 
 
116
 
97.4%
 
10.23
 
King Soopers
Centerplace of Greeley III Phase I
 
Greeley
 
CO
 
 
 
2007
 
2007
 
 
119
 
100.0%
 
14.17
 
Sports Authority
Cherrywood Square
 
Denver-Aurora
 
CO
 
40%
 
2005
 
1978
 
4,374
 
97
 
100.0%
 
9.84
 
King Soopers
Crossroads Commons
 
Boulder
 
CO
 
20%
 
2001
 
1986
 
16,759
 
143
 
100.0%
 
26.74
 
Whole Foods
Falcon Marketplace
 </